lavalampluva wrote:

If DL really hated DTW don’t you think they’d relocate their international service to another hub!!?

They are slowly. They have moved AMS capacity to MSP and they have moved PVG and ICN capacity to ATL

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

If DL really hated DTW don’t you think they’d relocate their international service to another hub!!?

They are slowly. They have moved AMS capacity to MSP and they have moved PVG and ICN capacity to ATL

Good job reading off of imaginary tea leaves, buddy!

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

If DL really hated DTW don’t you think they’d relocate their international service to another hub!!?

They are slowly. They have moved AMS capacity to MSP and they have moved PVG and ICN capacity to ATL

They canceled DTW-AMS/PVG/ICN? When did this happen?

flymco753 wrote:

if DUB won’t work then why does EI publicly say they want to fly it?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishc ... lights.amp

I don't think its a question of whether or not it would work, but who it would work for. It likely wouldn't work for Delta because they don't have anything on the other end, it's just a spoke that would compete with two other DL flights to DUB.

It could work for EI, provided there is enough demand for lower-cost European airfare.

How is WW's service at DTW doing so far?

seanpmassey wrote:

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

If DL really hated DTW don’t you think they’d relocate their international service to another hub!!?

They are slowly. They have moved AMS capacity to MSP and they have moved PVG and ICN capacity to ATL

They canceled DTW-AMS/PVG/ICN? When did this happen?

They didn't cancel it ICN/PVG was reduced in capacity and they started ATL-PVG/ICN. AMS same thing reduced capacity on the daily flights and added capacity at MSP but they are not completely canceled.

seanpmassey wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

if DUB won’t work then why does EI publicly say they want to fly it?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishc ... lights.amp

I don't think its a question of whether or not it would work, but who it would work for. It likely wouldn't work for Delta because they don't have anything on the other end, it's just a spoke that would compete with two other DL flights to DUB.

It could work for EI, provided there is enough demand for lower-cost European airfare.

How is WW's service at DTW doing so far?

Should be no issue with a narrow body A321 from DTW to DUB with connection possibilities all over Europe. WW seems to be holding it's own but don't have any numbers but it has extended DTW through the winter 4 weekly so that's a good indicator. I don't believe though that DY would be good for Detroit at this time as it would only hurt WW and any potential EI service and their longevity is questionable at this point so to pursue DY would be only shooting ourselves in the foot.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

If DL really hated DTW don’t you think they’d relocate their international service to another hub!!?

They are slowly. They have moved AMS capacity to MSP and they have moved PVG and ICN capacity to ATL

Good job reading off of imaginary tea leaves, buddy!

Really ICN and PVG have been reduced out of DTW and added at ATL. DTW-AMS doesn't even operate 4 daily anymore the 4 th flight is only operating 6 days a week now while MSP-AMS is almost 4 daily now with a KLM rotation included that's not reading tea leaves those are facts.

alfa164 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

if DUB won’t work then why does EI publicly say they want to fly it?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishc ... lights.amp

That article doesn't say "they want to fly it"; it says they were considering ten cities, and Detroit was one of them. It also says nothing about the criteria they were using to decide which to choose.

The fact is: if they want to fly it, nothing is stopping them. So they must not want to fly there very badly.

Ok, but 2 things.

1. None of these cities have been added yet.
2. I’m pretty sure they don’t have the resources to do these, as they are waiting on A321LR orders.

Once they have the resources, they’ll work their way down. PHL will probably start first followed by other cities listed.

seanpmassey wrote:

How is WW's service at DTW doing so far?

Don’t know, some information still needs to be released for April. Probably should wait until May since that was the first full month of service.

klm617 wrote:

seanpmassey wrote:

klm617 wrote:

They are slowly. They have moved AMS capacity to MSP and they have moved PVG and ICN capacity to ATL

They canceled DTW-AMS/PVG/ICN? When did this happen?

They didn't cancel it ICN/PVG was reduced in capacity and they started ATL-PVG/ICN. AMS same thing reduced capacity on the daily flights and added capacity at MSP but they are not completely canceled.

As of today
MSP-AMS 26 weekly flights (including KLM)
DTW-AMS 27 weekly flights

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

seanpmassey wrote:

They canceled DTW-AMS/PVG/ICN? When did this happen?

They didn't cancel it ICN/PVG was reduced in capacity and they started ATL-PVG/ICN. AMS same thing reduced capacity on the daily flights and added capacity at MSP but they are not completely canceled.

As of today
MSP-AMS 26 weekly flights (including KLM)
DTW-AMS 27 weekly flights

Yes and before it was.

MSP-AMS 21 weekly flights
DTW-AMS 28 weekly flights

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

They didn't cancel it ICN/PVG was reduced in capacity and they started ATL-PVG/ICN. AMS same thing reduced capacity on the daily flights and added capacity at MSP but they are not completely canceled.

As of today
MSP-AMS 26 weekly flights (including KLM)
DTW-AMS 27 weekly flights

Yes and before it was.
MSP-AMS 21 weekly flights
DTW-AMS 28 weekly flights

It is the good people of Minneapolis-St. Paul who should be complaining, not the whiners from Detroit. The Twin Cities is the second-largest economy in the Midwest of the USA, behind Chicago, and Detroit is third. Minneapolis-St. Paul moved past Detroit more than four years ago. It is about time their flights are catching up.

http://www.citypages.com/news/twin-citi ... st-6535253

jordanh wrote:

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

As of today
MSP-AMS 26 weekly flights (including KLM)
DTW-AMS 27 weekly flights

Yes and before it was.
MSP-AMS 21 weekly flights
DTW-AMS 28 weekly flights

It is the good people of Minneapolis-St. Paul who should be complaining, not the whiners from Detroit. The Twin Cities is the second-largest economy in the Midwest of the USA, behind Chicago, and Detroit is third. Minneapolis-St. Paul moved past Detroit more than four years ago. It is about time their flights are catching up.

http://www.citypages.com/news/twin-citi ... st-6535253

LOL That artical is 4 years old and as far as emplanements and capacity Delta has made sure it's been ahead of Detroit for years now. The last time Detroit was larger than MSP was in the Northwest day when there was some real comitment to the Detroit market.

If you want to discuss something positive, discuss how NK now has 10% of the market share when only 2 years ago they had 7. This is thanks to added frequency and upgauges from A319s to 320s and 320s to 321s. My analysis shows NK at 13% by 2020 further dwindling DL’s share.

DL won’t react unless it’s to markets that nobody serves sans VPS, ELP, SMF, etc. NK’s recent PBI add proved DL doesn’t care.

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

They didn't cancel it ICN/PVG was reduced in capacity and they started ATL-PVG/ICN. AMS same thing reduced capacity on the daily flights and added capacity at MSP but they are not completely canceled.

As of today
MSP-AMS 26 weekly flights (including KLM)
DTW-AMS 27 weekly flights

Yes and before it was.

MSP-AMS 21 weekly flights
DTW-AMS 28 weekly flights

So we still have 27 flights a week to the best connecting airport in Europe (IMO), some of which are on A350s, but that still isn't good enough for some people...

Looking at FSDan's incredible work: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396835&p=20489351#p20489111
I came up with the following numbers for DL at DTW using his data. (July on a Thursday each year I believe)
2012: 533 dep, 50,085 seats, 94 seats/dep
2014: 489 dep, 45,333 seats, 93 seats/dep
2018: 453 dep, 48,648 seats, 107 seats/dep


While DL definitely cut DTW from 2012-2014 (mostly from 2013-2014) I believe with the beginning of the SEA growth, it has since rebounded with n 8% decrease in departures more than counterbalanced by a 15% increase in average aircraft size to equal 7% growth from 2014-2018. 2012-2018 DTW is down but choosing the base year for comparison makes all the difference.


Eventually, ~2024, I see DTW settling at around 53,000 departing seats for DL (in this summer peak for comparison) with around 400 flights and around 130 seats/dep.

DTW has not been fully brought back from 2012 levels but is on its way back.

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

They didn't cancel it ICN/PVG was reduced in capacity and they started ATL-PVG/ICN. AMS same thing reduced capacity on the daily flights and added capacity at MSP but they are not completely canceled.

As of today
MSP-AMS 26 weekly flights (including KLM)
DTW-AMS 27 weekly flights

Yes and before it was.

MSP-AMS 21 weekly flights
DTW-AMS 28 weekly flights

Oh, you poor babies. You lost one weekly frequency to Amsterdam.
Look what Cleveland has lost from the UA/CO merger. It's much more, but I don't see CLE avgeeks kvetching half as much as y'all Detroiters.

klm617 wrote:

jordanh wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Yes and before it was.
MSP-AMS 21 weekly flights
DTW-AMS 28 weekly flights

It is the good people of Minneapolis-St. Paul who should be complaining, not the whiners from Detroit. The Twin Cities is the second-largest economy in the Midwest of the USA, behind Chicago, and Detroit is third. Minneapolis-St. Paul moved past Detroit more than four years ago. It is about time their flights are catching up.
http://www.citypages.com/news/twin-citi ... st-6535253

LOL That artical is 4 years old and as far as emplanements and capacity Delta has made sure it's been ahead of Detroit for years now. The last time Detroit was larger than MSP was in the Northwest day when there was some real comitment to the Detroit market.

LOL Do you have any evidence that the data in that "artical" has changed? If you do, please enlighten us; if you don't, then you have no basis to whine about it.

Let us see your evidence... please.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

As of today
MSP-AMS 26 weekly flights (including KLM)
DTW-AMS 27 weekly flights

Yes and before it was.

MSP-AMS 21 weekly flights
DTW-AMS 28 weekly flights

Oh, you poor babies. You lost one weekly frequency to Amsterdam.
Look what Cleveland has lost from the UA/CO merger. It's much more, but I don't see CLE avgeeks kvetching half as much as y'all Detroiters.

You’re right. Lots of markets not only lost international flights, but even wide body aircraft. I just don’t what it is with Detroit. The Detroit threads are always larger than other threads by ALOT!

klm617 wrote:

Actually you're wrong the region is one of the fastest growing economically.

Still waiting on your source that backs your claim that the Detroit metro region is among the fastest growing economically. Please provide it.

flymco753 wrote:

seanpmassey wrote:

How is WW's service at DTW doing so far?

Don’t know, some information still needs to be released for April. Probably should wait until May since that was the first full month of service.

It will be interesting to see the April and May numbers. I think WW will be a good indicator of whether or not DTW can support another European carrier.

klm617 wrote:

seanpmassey wrote:

klm617 wrote:

They are slowly. They have moved AMS capacity to MSP and they have moved PVG and ICN capacity to ATL

They canceled DTW-AMS/PVG/ICN? When did this happen?

They didn't cancel it ICN/PVG was reduced in capacity and they started ATL-PVG/ICN. AMS same thing reduced capacity on the daily flights and added capacity at MSP but they are not completely canceled.

1. As it has been pointed out several times already, the 744s that were operating DTW-ICN/PVG were too much plane. By replacing it with the A350, they've right-sized capacity for the routes, and they used the opportunity to introduce new soft-product that competes with the Premium Economy offerings of foreign airlines.

2. So they're spreading the load between their hubs. How is this a bad thing?

seanpmassey wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

seanpmassey wrote:

How is WW's service at DTW doing so far?

Don’t know, some information still needs to be released for April. Probably should wait until May since that was the first full month of service.

It will be interesting to see the April and May numbers. I think WW will be a good indicator of whether or not DTW can support another European carrier.

Well the WCAA statistics show that for the few days in April that WOW did operate, they flew 523 pax, which doesn't justify much. We'll see once May is released.

OTOH, Spirit took 10.1% of the market. This is before SAN really got started and the 2nd LAX flight was added. I'm expecting serious growth. DTW pax are flying Spirit. DL is increasing because of more mainline. AS really hiked from April of last year.

flymco753 wrote:

seanpmassey wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

Don’t know, some information still needs to be released for April. Probably should wait until May since that was the first full month of service.

It will be interesting to see the April and May numbers. I think WW will be a good indicator of whether or not DTW can support another European carrier.

Well the WCAA statistics show that for the few days in April that WOW did operate, they flew 523 pax, which doesn't justify much. We'll see once May is released.

OTOH, Spirit took 10.1% of the market. This is before SAN really got started and the 2nd LAX flight was added. I'm expecting serious growth. DTW pax are flying Spirit. DL is increasing because of more mainline. AS really hiked from April of last year.

Indeed. Evident by the YoY Seat increases comparing 2018 to 2017 based on the current schedule:

DL: +1.6%
NK: +12.9%
AA: -6.4%
UA: +0.9%
WN: -3.2%

All Carriers (Not just those listed above): +2.0% YoY

So before pointing the finger at DL for not growing enough maybe consider the fact that AA, WN, and F9 (-11.2% YoY) are the ones cutting DTW capacity.

johns624 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

As of today
MSP-AMS 26 weekly flights (including KLM)
DTW-AMS 27 weekly flights

Yes and before it was.

MSP-AMS 21 weekly flights
DTW-AMS 28 weekly flights

So we still have 27 flights a week to the best connecting airport in Europe (IMO), some of which are on A350s, but that still isn't good enough for some people...

Any reduction is not a good sign when all other hubs are getting increases.

klm617 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Yes and before it was.

MSP-AMS 21 weekly flights
DTW-AMS 28 weekly flights

So we still have 27 flights a week to the best connecting airport in Europe (IMO), some of which are on A350s, but that still isn't good enough for some people...

Any reduction is not a good sign when all other hubs are getting increases.

And yet, comparing the full year 2018 to the full year 2017, DTW will see a larger DL seat increase than MSP YoY, and one that is nearly on par with ATL:

DTW: +1.6%
MSP: +1.5%
ATL: +1.9%

Did you know that? I imagine not. Aren't facts neat? You should try them sometime.

seanpmassey wrote:

klm617 wrote:

seanpmassey wrote:

They canceled DTW-AMS/PVG/ICN? When did this happen?

They didn't cancel it ICN/PVG was reduced in capacity and they started ATL-PVG/ICN. AMS same thing reduced capacity on the daily flights and added capacity at MSP but they are not completely canceled.

1. As it has been pointed out several times already, the 744s that were operating DTW-ICN/PVG were too much plane. By replacing it with the A350, they've right-sized capacity for the routes, and they used the opportunity to introduce new soft-product that competes with the Premium Economy offerings of foreign airlines.

2. So they're spreading the load between their hubs. How is this a bad thing?

First of all the 744 being to big for the market is an a.net rumor the 744 were going out of DTW at the same or better loads than either SEA or ATL so the aircraft couldn't have been to big. Second I agree that spreading the load between hubs is a good thing the only problem I have with that is Delta is shifting away from Detroit. Delta is not spreading anything over Detroit again I take the case of MAN VS is going to a 744 on MAN-ATL why not downsize and send some of the load over Detroit and some over ATL. Again if a 744 was to big for DTW-Asia how is it not too big for ATL-MAN

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

So we still have 27 flights a week to the best connecting airport in Europe (IMO), some of which are on A350s, but that still isn't good enough for some people...

Any reduction is not a good sign when all other hubs are getting increases.

And yet, comparing the full year 2018 to the full year 2017, DTW will see a larger DL seat increase than MSP YoY, and one that is nearly on par with ATL:

DTW: +1.6%
MSP: +1.5%
ATL: +1.9%

Did you know that? I imagine not.

LOL 1.9% of a 100,000,000 emplanements is a far greater number than 1.6% 38,000,000 you have to compare apples to apples not grapes to watermelons. What are the departure counts those are the numbers that count for airport rankings.

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Any reduction is not a good sign when all other hubs are getting increases.

And yet, comparing the full year 2018 to the full year 2017, DTW will see a larger DL seat increase than MSP YoY, and one that is nearly on par with ATL:

DTW: +1.6%
MSP: +1.5%
ATL: +1.9%

Did you know that? I imagine not.

LOL 1.9% of a 100,000,000 emplanements is a far greater number than 1.6% 38,000,000 you have to compare apples to apples not grapes to watermelons. What are the departure counts those are the numbers that count for airport rankings.

Still waiting on your source showing that Metro Detroit is among the fastest growing economically in the country. Are you planning to provide that or should I go ahead and report your post?

As for absolute versus percentage growth, your statement doesn't justify a response. If you're looking at enplanements and absolute growth then DTW will never even be in the same breath as ATL because DTW isn't even in the same league as ATL when measured by population, economy, connectivity or... well... anything really. It's, as you say, grapes to watermelons. For that reason, percentage growth is the appropriate metric.

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Any reduction is not a good sign when all other hubs are getting increases.

And yet, comparing the full year 2018 to the full year 2017, DTW will see a larger DL seat increase than MSP YoY, and one that is nearly on par with ATL:

DTW: +1.6%
MSP: +1.5%
ATL: +1.9%

Did you know that? I imagine not.

If you’re trying to convince us at least use accurate statistics.




LOL 1.9% of a 100,000,000 emplanements is a far greater number than 1.6% 38,000,000 you have to compare apples to apples not grapes to watermelons. What are the departure counts those are the numbers that count for airport rankings.

If you’re trying to convince us, at least use accurate statistics.

Delta enplanements

ATL - 64,943,000
MSP - 25,995,533
DTW - 25,350,419

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

And yet, comparing the full year 2018 to the full year 2017, DTW will see a larger DL seat increase than MSP YoY, and one that is nearly on par with ATL:

DTW: +1.6%
MSP: +1.5%
ATL: +1.9%

Did you know that? I imagine not.

LOL 1.9% of a 100,000,000 emplanements is a far greater number than 1.6% 38,000,000 you have to compare apples to apples not grapes to watermelons. What are the departure counts those are the numbers that count for airport rankings.

Still waiting on your source showing that Metro Detroit is among the fastest growing economically in the country. Are you planning to provide that or should I go ahead and report your post?

As for absolute versus percentage growth, your statement doesn't justify a response. If you're looking at enplanements and absolute growth then DTW will never even be in the same breath as ATL because DTW isn't even in the same league as ATL when measured by population, economy, connectivity or... well... anything really. It's, as you say, grapes to watermelons. For that reason, percentage growth is the appropriate metric.

You’ll never get facts from this poster, just whining and complaining since DTW is not ATL / DXB / LAX / LHR / ORD / PVG rolled into one.

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

And yet, comparing the full year 2018 to the full year 2017, DTW will see a larger DL seat increase than MSP YoY, and one that is nearly on par with ATL:

DTW: +1.6%
MSP: +1.5%
ATL: +1.9%

Did you know that? I imagine not.

If you’re trying to convince us at least use accurate statistics.




LOL 1.9% of a 100,000,000 emplanements is a far greater number than 1.6% 38,000,000 you have to compare apples to apples not grapes to watermelons. What are the departure counts those are the numbers that count for airport rankings.

If you’re trying to convince us, at least use accurate statistics.

Delta enplanements

ATL - 64,943,000
MSP - 25,995,533
DTW - 25,350,419

Thank you good sir. Also of note is that MSP and DTW have almost identical flown Delta load factors for 2017:

MSP: 85.09%
DTW: 85.04%

That being the case, in terms of both enplanements and load factors MSP and DTW are as apples to apples of comparisons as you can possibly get. Therefore, the fact that DL is adding 1.6% more seats to DTW when compared to an add of 1.5% to MSP proves the below statement comically false, but who is surprised really?

klm617 wrote:

Any reduction is not a good sign when all other hubs are getting increases.

DL will be adding more enplanements to DTW when compared to MSP this year. Accept that fact and enough of your nonsensical statements not backed with any facts or figures.

nomorerjs wrote:

You’ll never get facts from this poster, just whining and complaining since DTW is not ATL / DXB / LAX / LHR / ORD / PVG rolled into one.

Don't I know it friend - but I do enjoy this.

winginit wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

If you’re trying to convince us at least use accurate statistics.




LOL 1.9% of a 100,000,000 emplanements is a far greater number than 1.6% 38,000,000 you have to compare apples to apples not grapes to watermelons. What are the departure counts those are the numbers that count for airport rankings.

If you’re trying to convince us, at least use accurate statistics.

Delta enplanements

ATL - 64,943,000
MSP - 25,995,533
DTW - 25,350,419

Thank you good sir. Also of note is that MSP and DTW have almost identical flown Delta load factors for 2017:

MSP: 85.09%
DTW: 85.04%

That being the case, in terms of both enplanements and load factors MSP and DTW are as apples to apples of comparisons as you can possibly get. Therefore, the fact that DL is adding 1.6% more seats to DTW when compared to an add of 1.5% to MSP proves the below statement comically false, but who is surprised really?

klm617 wrote:

Any reduction is not a good sign when all other hubs are getting increases.

DL will be adding more enplanements to DTW when compared to MSP this year. Accept that fact and enough of your nonsensical statements not backed with any facts or figures.

nomorerjs wrote:

You’ll never get facts from this poster, just whining and complaining since DTW is not ATL / DXB / LAX / LHR / ORD / PVG rolled into one.

Don't I know it friend - but I do enjoy this.

I come to this thread for my love of the Midwest and Western Michigan. Also, after a rough day at the office, if I need a good laugh, I know I won’t be disappointing here!

klm617 wrote:

seanpmassey wrote:

klm617 wrote:

They didn't cancel it ICN/PVG was reduced in capacity and they started ATL-PVG/ICN. AMS same thing reduced capacity on the daily flights and added capacity at MSP but they are not completely canceled.

1. As it has been pointed out several times already, the 744s that were operating DTW-ICN/PVG were too much plane. By replacing it with the A350, they've right-sized capacity for the routes, and they used the opportunity to introduce new soft-product that competes with the Premium Economy offerings of foreign airlines.

2. So they're spreading the load between their hubs. How is this a bad thing?

First of all the 744 being to big for the market is an a.net rumor the 744 were going out of DTW at the same or better loads than either SEA or ATL so the aircraft couldn't have been to big. Second I agree that spreading the load between hubs is a good thing the only problem I have with that is Delta is shifting away from Detroit. Delta is not spreading anything over Detroit again I take the case of MAN VS is going to a 744 on MAN-ATL why not downsize and send some of the load over Detroit and some over ATL. Again if a 744 was to big for DTW-Asia how is it not too big for ATL-MAN

There are some significant differences between the VS fleet and the Delta fleet that may have required a 744 be used on that route. For starters, the VS fleet is all widebodies, and their smallest planes, capacity wise, are the 333 and the 789 with 264 seats each. VS also hasn't had the fleet flexibility that Delta normally enjoys because they had to ground their 789s while awaiting engine fixes from Rolls Royce. In fact, Delta flew a number of routes for VS while they were acquiring additional aircraft and reshuffling their operations. So even if they had wanted to split the load between ATL and another Delta hub, they may not have been able to do to fleet limitations when the route was started. They may have also selected ATL because the the 744s typically fly to vacation destinations, so they may have been connecting passengers to destinations in Florida or the Caribbean.

A 744 in VS configuration, with 400+ seats, may in fact be too big for MAN-ATL. The MAN-ATL route now appears to be operated by a 332.

Second, it's been widely reported that the 744s were too big of planes. While they may have had good load factors, Delta had to sell significantly reduced airfares to fill the planes. Combined with the fact that the 744s were less efficient than two-engine planes meant that yields took a hit. Good loads don't mean anything if you're taking a hit to your profit.

Does anyone have a load-factor comparison for DTW-ICN or PVG on the 744 vs. the 359? Or know where someone could find that information?

seanpmassey wrote:

klm617 wrote:

seanpmassey wrote:

1. As it has been pointed out several times already, the 744s that were operating DTW-ICN/PVG were too much plane. By replacing it with the A350, they've right-sized capacity for the routes, and they used the opportunity to introduce new soft-product that competes with the Premium Economy offerings of foreign airlines.

2. So they're spreading the load between their hubs. How is this a bad thing?

First of all the 744 being to big for the market is an a.net rumor the 744 were going out of DTW at the same or better loads than either SEA or ATL so the aircraft couldn't have been to big. Second I agree that spreading the load between hubs is a good thing the only problem I have with that is Delta is shifting away from Detroit. Delta is not spreading anything over Detroit again I take the case of MAN VS is going to a 744 on MAN-ATL why not downsize and send some of the load over Detroit and some over ATL. Again if a 744 was to big for DTW-Asia how is it not too big for ATL-MAN

There are some significant differences between the VS fleet and the Delta fleet that may have required a 744 be used on that route. For starters, the VS fleet is all widebodies, and their smallest planes, capacity wise, are the 333 and the 789 with 264 seats each. VS also hasn't had the fleet flexibility that Delta normally enjoys because they had to ground their 789s while awaiting engine fixes from Rolls Royce. In fact, Delta flew a number of routes for VS while they were acquiring additional aircraft and reshuffling their operations. So even if they had wanted to split the load between ATL and another Delta hub, they may not have been able to do to fleet limitations when the route was started. They may have also selected ATL because the the 744s typically fly to vacation destinations, so they may have been connecting passengers to destinations in Florida or the Caribbean.

A 744 in VS configuration, with 400+ seats, may in fact be too big for MAN-ATL. The MAN-ATL route now appears to be operated by a 332.

Second, it's been widely reported that the 744s were too big of planes. While they may have had good load factors, Delta had to sell significantly reduced airfares to fill the planes. Combined with the fact that the 744s were less efficient than two-engine planes meant that yields took a hit. Good loads don't mean anything if you're taking a hit to your profit.

Does anyone have a load-factor comparison for DTW-ICN or PVG on the 744 vs. the 359? Or know where someone could find

that information?

But that is not the case for DTW-ICN/PVG because as soon as they were downgraded from a 744 to an A359 Delta added capacity to the 744 couldn't have been to big and every major market could be connected through Detroit just as easily as it was through ATL so even if they filled the plane with cheap seats they are going to have to do that more now given the added capacity. Delta has plenty of 767 and 757 aircraft available to split the MAN route and run the east west traffic over Detroit and the north south over ATL not to mention why would they want to carry all that low yielding FL and Caribbean traffic when they could get a better yield flying J class passengers over Detroit.

seanpmassey wrote:

klm617 wrote:

seanpmassey wrote:

1. As it has been pointed out several times already, the 744s that were operating DTW-ICN/PVG were too much plane. By replacing it with the A350, they've right-sized capacity for the routes, and they used the opportunity to introduce new soft-product that competes with the Premium Economy offerings of foreign airlines.

2. So they're spreading the load between their hubs. How is this a bad thing?

First of all the 744 being to big for the market is an a.net rumor the 744 were going out of DTW at the same or better loads than either SEA or ATL so the aircraft couldn't have been to big. Second I agree that spreading the load between hubs is a good thing the only problem I have with that is Delta is shifting away from Detroit. Delta is not spreading anything over Detroit again I take the case of MAN VS is going to a 744 on MAN-ATL why not downsize and send some of the load over Detroit and some over ATL. Again if a 744 was to big for DTW-Asia how is it not too big for ATL-MAN

There are some significant differences between the VS fleet and the Delta fleet that may have required a 744 be used on that route. For starters, the VS fleet is all widebodies, and their smallest planes, capacity wise, are the 333 and the 789 with 264 seats each. VS also hasn't had the fleet flexibility that Delta normally enjoys because they had to ground their 789s while awaiting engine fixes from Rolls Royce. In fact, Delta flew a number of routes for VS while they were acquiring additional aircraft and reshuffling their operations. So even if they had wanted to split the load between ATL and another Delta hub, they may not have been able to do to fleet limitations when the route was started. They may have also selected ATL because the the 744s typically fly to vacation destinations, so they may have been connecting passengers to destinations in Florida or the Caribbean.

A 744 in VS configuration, with 400+ seats, may in fact be too big for MAN-ATL. The MAN-ATL route now appears to be operated by a 332.

Second, it's been widely reported that the 744s were too big of planes. While they may have had good load factors, Delta had to sell significantly reduced airfares to fill the planes. Combined with the fact that the 744s were less efficient than two-engine planes meant that yields took a hit. Good loads don't mean anything if you're taking a hit to your profit.

Does anyone have a load-factor comparison for DTW-ICN or PVG on the 744 vs. the 359? Or know where someone could find that information?

Here are the loads for last year and you can see that the 744 loads are just as good or better than all the other loads for Delta's Asia flight so this is nothing more than a traffic grab by ATL when they 744 were down-gauged to the A359

DL LFs YE Nov 2017

MSP-HND 79%

ATL-ICN 92%
ATL-NRT 93%
DTW-ICN 90%
DTW-PEK 87%
DTW-PVG 89%
LAX-PVG 85%
SEA-HKG 85%
SEA-ICN 89%
SEA-PEK 87%
SEA-PVG 88%

klm617 wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

On any ABC-XYZ service announcement thread, 777Mech gaslights the thread with an insult to Detroit, winginit puts more gas with additional insults and Laxdude brings some old useless foreign-born data.

I haven't seen any of this because I just jumped in. Sorry about not getting the whole context.

nomorerjs wrote:

This thread does not accept facts or reality.

Comparing IAH / ORD - AKL vs. DTW - India is like comparing a Ferrari to a Yugo.

DTW is not the center of the universe, please accept that. If money was to be made at DTW, the service would be there. It’s simple business 101. There is no conspiracy, collusion, or hatred of DTW. Airlines are in this to make money and have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. If DL can make more profit at ATL, JFK, etc., they will allocate resources there. DL just announced SEA - HKG is going away. I wish them luck on SEA - KIX, but that has dog written all over it.

This thread is all emotion driven. If you make non-positive comments about DTW, you are questioned, ridiculed, and trolled.

To make matters worse, a couple of posters on this thread go to other threads and blast new routes not at DTW and say it should go to DTW. No reason is given other than DTW deserves it. DTW, or any other airport for that matter, doesn’t deserve anything.

Aviation is profit driven and planes will be placed where money is to be made. Airlines have access to incredible amounts of data and spend enormous amounts of time on route choices, especially international routes.

Based on logic in this thread, ATL / DFW / ORD should all be the DXB of North America.

SEA-KIX should do ok, however I remember seeing that its yield is China level trash (atleast from ORD).

100% agree its emotion driven.

As much as I want to say something about ORD-AKL, I know that the facts showing the strong case for it will just be fuel on the fire.

Also to this point: "Aviation is profit driven and planes will be placed where money is to be made. Airlines have access to incredible amounts of data and spend enormous amounts of time on route choices, especially international routes."

The statement is about 95% true. There are some major data holes to be filled (POS data, load times, cargo is a MAJOR one I wish I had detailed insights to), and there is plenty of opportunity for new types of analysis (I was in the processes of making an extremely detailed catchment analysis that combined census, geographic and the "good" POS data into one. Something that wasn't thought about much.). I do live by the profit driven point, its something I am grappling trying to make a Orbis Flying Eye hospital like plane- how to make it profitable.

I'm not saying ORD-AKL shouldn't be flown what I am saying is that using the same parameters that justify ORD-AKL one could jusitfy DTW-MAN, DTW-DUB and EK service to DXB. Just curious in your presentation to perspective new airlines to service ORD did you use Michigan at all as part of the draw they could expect to get when adding ORD

ORD-AKL is driven by two alliance partners on either end, and a decent one stop market that can flow through either hub. There is a bit more to it I wish I could share but I'm not sure I can.

To answer your question, we did not consider Michigan in any of our Catchment analysis' that were done. Mainly a 60/90/120 drive time warrents most of northern IL, southern WI and northwestern IN. Maybe the 120 minute drive time could encompass extreme southwestern Michigan, but I do not remember.

What the numbers showed, especially if it was a Star or Oneworld airline I was doing the forecast for, was a large amount of connecting traffic to mainly secondary Michigan and Midwestern cities. I don't remember DTW really popping up in any of my QSI models.

nmdrdh787 wrote:

ORD-AKL is driven by two alliance partners on either end

Not trying to stir some crud, but wouldn't you think that this same concept would apply to Skyteam carriers? Delta and Saudia are partners, that wouldn't be a half bad option and could draw connections on both ends. I'm not saying it's a great idea, I'm saying isn't that the same concept?

KLM617 cant produce data that shows Detroit has one of the fastest growing economies because Detroit doesnt have one of the fastest growing economies. Its turned around and now is growing, but its hardly one of the fastest.

flymco753 wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

ORD-AKL is driven by two alliance partners on either end

Not trying to stir some crud, but wouldn't you think that this same concept would apply to Skyteam carriers? Delta and Saudia are partners, that wouldn't be a half bad option and could draw connections on both ends. I'm not saying it's a great idea, I'm saying isn't that the same concept?

It really depends on the relationship. UA and NZ have a decent relationship. Even though airlines are alliance partners, that does not mean that they are obligated to open full availability of seats to either partner. Case in point was Avianca and UA before the JV. I pulled the availability of connections for Avianca's SAL-IAH beyond IAH and it was only select cities.

DTW-JED,RUH would be an interesting forecast. Wish I had Sabre numbers, I could run it right now!

Does anyone know who does DTW's air service development, by the way.

nmdrdh787 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

ORD-AKL is driven by two alliance partners on either end

Not trying to stir some crud, but wouldn't you think that this same concept would apply to Skyteam carriers? Delta and Saudia are partners, that wouldn't be a half bad option and could draw connections on both ends. I'm not saying it's a great idea, I'm saying isn't that the same concept?

It really depends on the relationship. UA and NZ have a decent relationship. Even though airlines are alliance partners, that does not mean that they are obligated to open full availability of seats to either partner. Case in point was Avianca and UA before the JV. I pulled the availability of connections for Avianca's SAL-IAH beyond IAH and it was only select cities.

DTW-JED,RUH would be an interesting forecast. Wish I had Sabre numbers, I could run it right now!

Does anyone know who does DTW's air service development, by the way.

Check your inbox.

flymco753 wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

Not trying to stir some crud, but wouldn't you think that this same concept would apply to Skyteam carriers? Delta and Saudia are partners, that wouldn't be a half bad option and could draw connections on both ends. I'm not saying it's a great idea, I'm saying isn't that the same concept?

It really depends on the relationship. UA and NZ have a decent relationship. Even though airlines are alliance partners, that does not mean that they are obligated to open full availability of seats to either partner. Case in point was Avianca and UA before the JV. I pulled the availability of connections for Avianca's SAL-IAH beyond IAH and it was only select cities.

DTW-JED,RUH would be an interesting forecast. Wish I had Sabre numbers, I could run it right now!

Does anyone know who does DTW's air service development, by the way.

Check your inbox.

Got it, ty!

nmdrdh787 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

ORD-AKL is driven by two alliance partners on either end

Not trying to stir some crud, but wouldn't you think that this same concept would apply to Skyteam carriers? Delta and Saudia are partners, that wouldn't be a half bad option and could draw connections on both ends. I'm not saying it's a great idea, I'm saying isn't that the same concept?

It really depends on the relationship. UA and NZ have a decent relationship. Even though airlines are alliance partners, that does not mean that they are obligated to open full availability of seats to either partner. Case in point was Avianca and UA before the JV. I pulled the availability of connections for Avianca's SAL-IAH beyond IAH and it was only select cities.

DTW-JED,RUH would be an interesting forecast. Wish I had Sabre numbers, I could run it right now!

Does anyone know who does DTW's air service development, by the way.

IAH-SAL may not be the best example. Its 140 PDEW and only a 2.5 hour flight.

IAH-BOG may be a better example. Its 60 PDEW and a 5 hour flight. It has more to gain/lose by a JV or lack thereof.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

Not trying to stir some crud, but wouldn't you think that this same concept would apply to Skyteam carriers? Delta and Saudia are partners, that wouldn't be a half bad option and could draw connections on both ends. I'm not saying it's a great idea, I'm saying isn't that the same concept?

It really depends on the relationship. UA and NZ have a decent relationship. Even though airlines are alliance partners, that does not mean that they are obligated to open full availability of seats to either partner. Case in point was Avianca and UA before the JV. I pulled the availability of connections for Avianca's SAL-IAH beyond IAH and it was only select cities.

DTW-JED,RUH would be an interesting forecast. Wish I had Sabre numbers, I could run it right now!

Does anyone know who does DTW's air service development, by the way.

IAH-SAL may not be the best example. Its 140 PDEW and only a 2.5 hour flight.

IAH-BOG may be a better example. Its 60 PDEW and a 5 hour flight. It has more to gain/lose by a JV or lack thereof.

This is true. I was focused on retiming IAH-SAL but 100% agree with what you are saying.

flymco753 wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

ORD-AKL is driven by two alliance partners on either end

Not trying to stir some crud, but wouldn't you think that this same concept would apply to Skyteam carriers? Delta and Saudia are partners, that wouldn't be a half bad option and could draw connections on both ends. I'm not saying it's a great idea, I'm saying isn't that the same concept?

During one person's social media rant disparaging Delta because Saudia was a part of Skyteam - and demands that Jewish passengers avoid Delta because of that - Delta pointed pointed out that they do not have, and never had, any codeshare with them.The DL-SV relationship is definitely not a close one.

And the thought of any onward connections in RUH or JED would probably send chills down the spines of most Western passengers; I wouldn't count on very many connecting passengers to take advantage of the Arabian end.

flymco753 wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

ORD-AKL is driven by two alliance partners on either end

Not trying to stir some crud, but wouldn't you think that this same concept would apply to Skyteam carriers? Delta and Saudia are partners, that wouldn't be a half bad option and could draw connections on both ends. I'm not saying it's a great idea, I'm saying isn't that the same concept?

Not really, because "alliance partners" isn't the proper description. It'd be "partners who cooperate and feed traffic at both ends". I've yet to hear of SV and DL working together, whereas NZ and UA cooperate (check out AKL-IAH to see how well they do it).

I want to note some growing city pairs from DTW using Top 10 Destination data.
-Orlando, FL: quickly grew over 600K and is growing due to O&D.
-New York-LGA, NY: tied with ORD as 3rd busiest destination, should surpass next month passing ORD.
-Los Angeles, CA: wasn't even top 10 until this year, grown over 30% fueled by double NK service and DL increases.

Looking at some PDEW data BNA and AUS are among 2 of the fastest growing medium-sized markets.

In terms of DTW-FL from most traveled to least traveled in March 2018:
MCO:
DL-87%
F9- 94%
NK- 90%
WN- 88%
^very healthy route

FLL:
DL- 90%
B6- 83%
NK- 93%

TPA:
DL- 92%
NK- 83%
WN- 88%

RSW:
DL- 89%
F9- 74%
NK- 84%

MIA:
AA- 84%
DL- 95%
F9- 89%

PBI:
DL- 90% <-safe to say NK will do alright.

JAX:
DL- 66% <-low season for JAX.

SRQ:
DL- 87%

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

ORD-AKL is driven by two alliance partners on either end

Not trying to stir some crud, but wouldn't you think that this same concept would apply to Skyteam carriers? Delta and Saudia are partners, that wouldn't be a half bad option and could draw connections on both ends. I'm not saying it's a great idea, I'm saying isn't that the same concept?

Not really, because "alliance partners" isn't the proper description. It'd be "partners who cooperate and feed traffic at both ends". I've yet to hear of SV and DL working together, whereas NZ and UA cooperate (check out AKL-IAH to see how well they do it).

NZ and UA dont' just cooperate. They have a joint venture. They have anti-trust exemptions to collude on US-NZ routes with full ability to share revenue and costs. That's a higher level of cooperation than even a strong codeshare relationship.

Hate to break it to you, but SV is not coming to DTW. This thread immediately brings ORD into this (if NZ can fly ORD-AKL with little O&D, why can’t airline A make DTW - anywhere in the world work)?

Detroit is not Chicago, not even close. So many differences that have been brought up here for years, but few accept the facts. Then this turns to the gutter quickly based on emotion, collusion, conspiracy, and outright hatred of DTW being the key talking points.